[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFwNqGN7PYsFudUKdTZikUn=Sr1tHCim3jySUfPnM4neag@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 08:13:59 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org>
Cc: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ibm.com>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfs: fix IMA lockdep circular locking dependency
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@...isplace.org> wrote:
>
> So we would have no checks for anonymous mappings? We actually do
> have some controls around them today
>
> http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/selinux-mem.html
>
> It's mostly around W+X memory. (or was W now X memory)
Ahh, ok. So I guess that won't work.
That said, I think do_brk() can already today be used to avoid those
checks, since it does a mmap with VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS, which
includes exec if the current personality includes READ_IMPLIES_EXEC -
which is trivial yo do.
I wonder if the rwx checks could be split up too - the access
protection from the *file* is really a separate issue from the access
protection of the *mapping*, if you see what I mean.. Then we could do
it at do_brk() time too.
Linus
>
> Admittedly with the growing prevalence of JiT stuff we are using those
> protections less and less and less....
>
> Not certain how happy some will be to see them completely disappear....
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists